|Home||American Libraries | Canadian Libraries | Universal Library | Community Texts | Project Gutenberg | Children's Library | Biodiversity Heritage Library | Additional Collections|
|Anonymous User (login or join us)|
Creative Commons license: Attribution-No Derivative Works 3.0
Subject: Superbly Insightful with Delicious Details
One of those rare books which is suppressed and speaks volumes of truth.
Subject: Rivonia What?
The information presented is not as interesting as the assumptions that taken from that information. Mandela and the ANC planned and acted violently. People died. As far as I can tell Mandela and the other Rivonia trialists never argued otherwise.
The argument that these actions were not about anti-apartheid but rather about terrorism and murder is myopic. If murder and terrorism was the point then the state should have been on trial as well. A more important question is whether the actions would have ever been taken if the state itself had not used violence against non violent protesters. If everyone were allowed to vote would it have happened? If non whites had not been moved to the poorest areas of the country would it have happened? If people had not been banned and imprisoned for speaking opinions the state did not appreciate, would these actions have happened.
When even peaceful protests are met with violence the only way to communicate seems to be with violence. Even Gandhi left South Africa. His ideas of non-violence are effective against a British empire that is unwilling to kill those who are not acting violently. It is not so effective against those willing to kill even the peaceful.
Communism muddles the issue it seems. Communism has roots in observations of the effects of concentrated power. The ANC and the communist party (there was often dual membership) shared the observation that concentrated power was problematic. Even the South African Communist party eventually proved to be less that stalwart communists. In effect these groups in South Africa were protest organizations. They had a very good understanding of what was wrong but not necessarily what should come - ironically it they could not say what things should be like to any great degree or it would be an action of concentrated power, things would have to be decided in relationship with one another. The important point is that these groups were focused on protest and ending apartheid. It is a mistake to give too much credence to the little focus put on what the future should look like other than they felt democratic elections were necessary.
There is a lot of accurate information in this book. There is a lot of misuse of that information as well. Where this book is valuable is in understanding the psychology of apartheid, which is not the intention of the book.
|Ocr:||ABBYY FineReader 8.0|